| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Lane, Harold wrote: > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:10:41 -0500 > From: "Lane, Harold" <hlane@nsf.gov> > Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk > To: "'paleonet@nhm.ac.uk'" <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk> > Subject: RE: paleonet YEC&DinoBlood > > Can they provide an independent scientifically-based date on the 6-10 > thousand year age of the Earth? > > Rich Views as above (age of the earth 6-10 ka), if they become standard, affect geological results. Thus I propose (for those who know the respective urls) to address this by sending for example a polite and explaining e-mail to them about isotope dating. I propose the rationale: 1) The Hiroshima bomb (which nobody doubts), isotopes with a shorter and a longer half-life (days, years, decades). 2) How they are measured. The ratio between mother and daughter isotopes, the resulting decay constants (e.g. just a step-by-step explanation, considering a mathematical knowledge before calculus). Possibly a short insert: SQRT, sin and cos you know (with a small graph). The ln describes a curve like (small picture), so to say "some sort of sine for asymptotically approaching curves". The exp function the "reverse". Alternatively: y=x and y=x**2 (with small graph) you know. "A one sided version of y=x**2 is y=exp(x)". "Doing it backward" is ln (possibly some small inserts addressing those who apply a standard pocket calculator). From this (isotope ratio and decay constant). Just a nice way a priest can understand so he/she might reply the next e-mail challenging isotope dating with a hint "its not a miracle or unreligious; its just pie-counting and a pocket calculator, so it might have some truth". 3) Then the measuring of isotope pairs with longer halflifes. 4) The same approach to isotopes such as K-Ar and so forth. The wording should be correct but it should address the thought-patterns of priests and related; not necessarily the thought-patterns of isotope-geologists. 14C I would not pull as it is a different system with a variety of impacts (such as earth s magnetic field). It might also be done by outreach-people of NSF. E.g. not sending "just a PDF" but really, if on some website such doubts are posted, a calm addressing of their doubts (they are "the public"). The good thing with these apparent doubts in isotope-dating: If isotope-dating is explained well, then fossiliferous strata with interbedded basalts (isotope dating) can be added to outline the variation of fossils through time and thus evolution in a different url/pdf. Thus, although the news that they challenge isotope-dating is not good, it is a good chance to explain geological timescales - not bashing them but filling gaps of knowledge at their level of understanding e.g.: Of course math included (so there is no need to "believe" anything) but such that nobody is deterred. The principles of isotope dating do not involve any view on evolution. As they are, wether we like it or not, "the public", we might recognize the chance to help them coming to an informed opinion on geological timescales. All other aspects fit then rationally and calmly (just isotope dating and timescales, only the facts and how they are measured, no word on ID or religion as this would be didactically subprudent if timescales are the issue to be explained. Best regards Peter ********************************************************************** Dr. Peter P. Smolka University Muenster Geological Institute Corrensstr. 24 D-48149 Muenster Tel.: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401 Fax: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401 E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de **********************************************************************
Partial index: